Tag: venezuela

Pentagon Barred Senior House Staffers From Briefing on Venezuela Boat Strike

The Department of War is thwarting congressional oversight of the Trump administration’s attack on a boat off the coast of Venezuela earlier this month.

Senior staff from House leadership and relevant committees were barred by the Office of the Secretary of War from attending a briefing on the attack last Tuesday, according to three government sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The military cited “alternative compensatory control measures” — the term for enhanced security procedures designed to keep information under wraps — as the reason.

The War Department has attempted to conceal numerous details about the attack that killed 11 people in the Caribbean, including the fact that the vessel altered its course and appeared to have turned back toward shore prior to the strikes. Men on board were said to have survived an initial strike, The Intercept reported last week. They were then killed shortly after in a follow-up attack.

“I’m incredibly disturbed by this new reporting that the Trump Administration launched multiple strikes on the boat off Venezuela,” Rep., Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., a member of the House Armed Services Committee’s Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations, said of The Intercept’s coverage. “They didn’t even bother to seek congressional authorization, bragged about these killings — and teased more to come.”

A very small number of Senate and House staffers, mostly from the Armed Services committees, received highly classified briefings about the attack last Tuesday, after the military delayed the meeting for days. Staff for key members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which oversee war powers, were conspicuously absent.

Keep reading

Coast Gard Personnel From USS Jason Dunham Intercept Venezuelan Boat, as Maritime Siege Is Now Reinforced by Stealth F-35 Fighter Jets

Maduro talks, the US acts.

Under the extreme pressure of the US authorities and military, Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro makes bombastic speeches every day, is trying to unite his broken ‘Bolivarian’ Republic and mobilize his military against what he expects is an imminent attack/invasion of the US forces besieging him.

On the US side, very little is being said, but a lot of activity can be seen.

After an alleged Venezuelan drug boat was pulverized by an airstrike on September 1st, marines from the destroyer USS Jason Dunham boarded and seized a Venezuelan boat on Friday (12).

Described as fishing vessel, it was the object of an inspection related to suspected drug trafficking. No drugs were reportedly found, and the action has been condemned by Venezuela as an act of ‘piracy’ and a violation of sovereignty.

Keep reading

Operation “Let’s Grab The Oil”

I don’t know if you remember it, but last year I hypothesized that the Trump administration would focus their attention on a North/South axis of power… and less on an East/West.

Part of this is down to the fact the US Military is stretched globally, and likely no small part comes down to the fact that their ability to project power has for decades been reliant on their naval capabilities. These are now rendered obsolete due to the Russian missiles which can sink them and are unstoppable. All parties know this, though it remains to be seen whether US hubris may ignore it nonetheless.

In any event, focusing on the easy prey — the US own backyard, so to speak. Canada (remember the comments about “Governor Trudeau?”) and the political pressure on Mexico. Then there is the strong allegiance now with Argentina and the pressure being placed on Brazil, the focus on Panama — the canal being all important, of course. All of this is due to a North/South pivot.

So included in this is, of course, Venezuela.

The Escalating Political Showdown: Trump vs. Maduro Over Venezuela’s Black Gold

The relationship between the Donald and Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has devolved into one of the most hilarious and contentious international political feuds of recent years, with both leaders engaging in increasingly hostile rhetoric. Of course, it’s all theatre — a sideshow masking the real prize: the struggle over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, the largest proven reserves in the world.

Why, for example, is Don not blabbing about Costa Rica or Honduras or any other country in the region?

The Bounty That Started It All

Back in March of 2020 the US administration placed a $15 million bounty on Maduro’s head through the DEA’s “Narcotics Rewards Program.” They accused Maduro and other Venezuelan officials of “narco-terrorism” and drug trafficking conspiracy charges. This bounty, along with similar rewards for other Venezuelan officials totaling over $55 million, marked the first time the United States had placed such a substantial price on a sitting head of state.

The US justified this action by claiming that Maduro’s regime had transformed Venezuela into a “criminal enterprise” that facilitated drug trafficking throughout the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo at the time declared that the Venezuelan government had become “one of the most corrupt and destructive forces in the Western Hemisphere.”

In reality, the CIA doesn’t like competition, but anyway…

Maduro’s Counterattack: The Epstein Files Gambit

Maduro’s response was swift and inflammatory. Taking to his official social media accounts, he pointed out who Trump pays allegiance to (Mossad) and suggested a release of the Epstein files. It’s all highly entertaining… except if you’re a Venezuelan, of course, wondering if Trump drops a “big beautiful bomb” on your head.

The Prize: Venezuela’s Oil Wealth

Behind this political theatre lies the true source of tension: Venezuela’s staggering oil reserves. According to OPEC data, Venezuela possesses approximately 303.8 billion barrels of proven oil reserves — roughly 18% of the world’s total. This makes Venezuela’s reserves larger than those of Saudi Arabia (267 billion barrels) and represents more oil than the combined reserves of Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait.

Despite this wealth, Venezuela’s oil production has plummeted from over 3 million barrels per day in the 1990s to barely 800,000 barrels per day by 2020, largely due to mismanagement, corruption, and international sanctions.

The Trump administration’s sanctions effectively cut off Venezuela’s access to US refineries and financial systems, costing the country an estimated $116 billion between 2017 and 2020. So there’s definitely no love lost there.

Social Media War

The conflict has played out extensively on social media platforms, with both leaders using their accounts to escalate tensions. Trump frequently posted on Truth Social about Venezuela, calling Maduro a “dictator” and claiming that “Venezuela’s oil belongs to its people, not to corrupt narco-terrorists.”

Meanwhile, Maduro has used his platforms to portray himself as a victim of “Yankee imperialism,” posting: “They want our oil, our gold, our resources. But the Bolivarian Revolution will never surrender to the gringo empire.”

Keep reading

Venezuela says US intercepted and boarded a tuna vessel in hostile manner

The Venezuelan government announced on Sept 13 that a US destroyer intercepted, boarded and occupied a Venezuelan tuna fishing vessel for eight hours in the waters of the South American country’s special economic zone on Sept 12.

In a statement read by Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yvan Gil, the government said tuna vessel Carmen Rosawas boarded in an illegal and hostile manner, and that it was crewed by nine “humble” fishermen and was “harmless”.

Tensions have been mounting between Washington and Caracas. On Sept 2, a US military strike in the Caribbean 

killed 11 people and sank a boat from Venezuela that US President Donald Trump’s administration claimed was transporting illegal narcotics.

The Trump administration has provided scant information about the attack on Sept 2, despite demands from US Congress members for the government to justify its actions. The Venezuelan government has said that 

none of those killed belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, as the US has alleged.

US officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the alleged incident on Sept 12.

The Venezuelan government identified the US vessel as the USS Jason Dunham, “equipped with powerful cruise missiles and manned by highly specialised marines”.

It demanded that the US immediately cease targeting vessels, which it said puts “the security and peace of the Caribbean at risk”. 

Keep reading

The Roots Of Trump’s Continued Wars On Terror Trace Back To 9/11

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an “invasion” at the border.

Unfortunately, more than two decades of widely-accepted, bipartisan laws and norms first laid the groundwork for this to occur.

After 9/11, the Bush administration created the Specially Designated Global Terrorists list, and Congress expanded the pre-existing Foreign Terrorist Organization list. These lists allow the executive branch, at its sole discretion, to add and remove individuals and groups to standing lists of “terrorists,” a term that is defined broadly.

The Trump administration has exercised this authority to formally designate transnational cartels as “terrorists” due in part to their role in the flow of people and drugs across the southern border into the United States. They have leveraged this designation to justify a range of actions, including deploying troops to Los Angeles and deporting immigrants to a brutal Salvadorean prison without due process.

Another post-9/11 legal invention that paved the way to what the Trump administration is doing today was the USA PATRIOT Act’s updates to immigration law that allowed deportation of not just those involved in actual violent acts of terrorism, but also those loosely associated with designated “terrorist groups,” even if those associations were peaceful and law-abiding or involuntary and a result of duress. People who have previously been excluded from the United States by these provisions include Iraqi interpreters for U.S. troops, victims of forced labor by violent armed groups in El Salvador, and even Nelson Mandela. These provisions mean that not just alleged members of cartels, but also cartel victims could be denied entry into the United States or deported if already here.

These same post-9/11 immigration law amendments also allow for revoking or denying immigration benefits to foreign nationals who “endorse or espouse” “terrorist activity,” defined broadly. The Trump administration has already revoked the visas of several immigrant students and scholars solely for their nonviolent activities criticizing the U.S.-Israel genocide in Gaza, as part of what they call a “zero-tolerance” policy for terrorism. The administration has primarily leaned on an older and more obscure provision of immigration law to carry out these attacks on immigrants’ free speech rights. But if current efforts are blocked by courts, or they wish to go further, post-9/11 immigration law may give them the tools to justify doing so.

The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal “war on terror” in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an “imminent threat” and resulting “self-defense” powers.

Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague “national interest.” We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an “immediate threat to the United States,” that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was “in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”

Commentators are entirely correct to denounce these assertions of legal authority. But policymakers have spent more than two decades accepting a war paradigm against whomever presidents determine to be “terrorist,” making it politically and legally all the more difficult to push back against what the Trump administration is doing now.

Keep reading

Taking the Constitution Seriously

Last week, the President of the United States did not take the Constitution seriously. He ordered the murders of 11 people who were riding in a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea around 1,300 miles from the U.S.

Afterward he said he did so because he believed that they were members of a “narco-terrorist gang” and were delivering illegal drugs to America. He also did so, he said, as a “message” to other drug dealers who should fear a similar fate.

The boat had no ability to reach the U.S. According to the former head of drug interdiction for the Department of Justice, this so-called boat gang is not known for trafficking in illegal drugs. The crimes that the president said these folks committed did not occur in the U.S., and if they had, do not permit the imposition of the death penalty.

He offered no evidence to support his claims and didn’t even suggest that the riders in the boat posed a threat to the American military personnel who killed them. He couldn’t say if anyone in the boat was an American.

When he was asked for the legal authority for these killings, President Donald Trump replied that these folks were waging war on the U.S., and, because he is the president of the United States, he can do as he wishes to them.

These are constitutionally ignorant, morally repugnant, profoundly erroneous responses from a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Here is the backstory.

When British monarchs wanted to dispose of inconvenient adversaries, they often accused them of vague crimes because they were able to define the crime however they saw fit. St. Thomas More, Henry VIII’s former Lord Chancellor, was executed for his silence. The monarch’s target was given a quick trial and then often a slow and excruciating public death – to send a message.

Mindful of the tyrannical impulses of monarchs and familiar with British history, even personally aware of folks in the colonies charged with crimes in London — where they had never been — and transported there for prosecution, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the Founding Fathers most responsible for crystallizing the American ethos of natural rights and due process, crafted founding documents that articulated condemnations and prohibitions of tyranny and tyrannical behavior here.

Thus, Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence characterize human rights as the gift of the Creator, which cannot be taken away by executive decree or legislative enactment – ut only by a jury verdict.

And Madison’s words in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment declare that “no person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The use of the word “person” makes it obvious that due process applies to all human beings.

Due process requires a fair jury trial, with counsel and the opportunity for confrontation of witnesses and evidence produced by the government. It also requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty to a neutral jury, not to the accuser. And it requires conviction prior to the imposition of a legislatively prescribed penalty.

This was novel and radical in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, but it is neither novel nor radical today. Today, due process is the foundation of American law. It is what lawyers call black-letter law: Those in government are expected to know it and understand it and abide by it.

Until now.

Keep reading

Trump Calls His Drone Strike on an Alleged Drug Boat ‘Self-Defense.’ It Looks More Like Murder.

Last week, President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike that sank a speedboat in the Caribbean Sea, killing all 11 people on board. Trump described the targets as members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua who were “at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States.” Although the men could have been intercepted and arrested, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, the president decided their summary execution was appropriate as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

On Wednesday, The New York Times, citing unnamed “American officials familiar with the matter,” reported that the boat “appeared to have turned around before the attack started because the people onboard had apparently spotted a military aircraft stalking it.” That detail further complicates the already dubious legal and moral rationales for this unprecedented use of the U.S. military to kill criminal suspects.

The attack “crossed a fundamental line the Department of Defense has been resolutely committed to upholding for many decades—namely, that (except in rare and extreme circumstances not present here) the military must not use lethal force against civilians, even if they are alleged, or even known, to be violating the law,” Georgetown law professor Marty Lederman notes in a Just Security essay. Lederman adds that the September 2 drone strike “appears to have violated” the executive order prohibiting assassination and arguably qualifies as murder under federal law and the Uniform Code of Criminal Justice.

New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, a former Defense Department lawyer, agrees. “It’s difficult to imagine how any lawyers inside the Pentagon could have arrived at a conclusion that this was legal,” he told the Times last week, “rather than the very definition of murder under international law rules that the Defense Department has long accepted.”

As Trump told it, the attack was justified because Tren de Aragua is “a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of [Venezuelan President] Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.” He said the strike was meant to “serve as notice to anybody even thinking about bringing drugs into the United States of America.”

Drug cartels have “wrought devastating consequences on American communities for decades, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of United States citizens each year and threatening our national security and foreign policy interests both at home and abroad,” Trump said in a September 4 letter to Congress. “We have now reached a critical point where we must meet this threat to our citizens and our most vital national interests with United States military force in self-defense.”

U.S. forces therefore “struck a vessel” that “was assessed to be affiliated with a designated terrorist organization and to be engaged in illicit drug trafficking activities,” Trump explained. “I directed these actions consistent with my responsibility to protect Americans and United States interests abroad and in furtherance of United States national security and foreign policy interests, pursuant to my constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive to conduct United States foreign relations.”

Trump says the men whose deaths he ordered were “assessed” to be affiliated with Tren de Aragua. They also were “assessed” to be engaged in drug trafficking. Without knowing the basis for those assessments, we cannot say how accurate they were. Last week, Trump joked about the potential for deadly errors: “I think anybody that saw that is going to say, ‘I’ll take a pass.’ I don’t even know about fishermen. They may say, ‘I’m not getting on the boat. I’m not going to take a chance.'” Conveniently for Trump, summary execution avoids any need to present evidence, let alone meet the requirements of due process.

“Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military,” Vice President J.D. Vance declared in an X post on Saturday. When a commenter observed that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” Vance replied, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.”

That was too much for Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.). “Did he ever read To Kill a Mockingbird?” Paul wondered. “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

Keep reading

Trump Warns Any Venezuelan Plane Threatening US Ships Will Be Shot Down

On Friday, for the second time in just two days, a Venezuelan F-16 jet flew near a US warship in the southern Caribbean. At least eight American navel vessels have been deployed off the Latin American country which possesses the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves.

President Trump the same day warned that if Venezuelan jets fly over US naval ships and “put us in a dangerous position, they’ll be shot down.”

CBS late Friday cited Pentagon officials who said a Venezuelan plane flew over the US destroyer “Jason Dunham” for the second time.

Some observers have begun to question the circumstances behind the prior US strike on a “drug-carrying vessel from Venezuela” operated allegedly by a drug trafficking gang, which killed all eleven people on board. Assuming they weren’t military, it could be classified as an extrajudicial killing in international waters, with no warning issued or attempt at intercept.

The Commander-in-Chief has put US forces deployed there on a war footing, it appears:

When asked by reporters in the Oval Office on Friday what would happen if Venezuelan jets flew over US vessels again, Trump said Venezuela would be in “trouble”.

Trump told his general, standing beside him, that he could do anything he wanted if the situation escalated.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has responded by rejecting the state-linked narcotrafficking allegations, and explained that current problems and differences between the nations do not justify a “military conflict”.

Maduro continued, “Venezuela has always been willing to talk, to engage in dialogue, but we demand respect.”

Keep reading

Senator Tammy Duckworth: Trump Vaporizing That Drug Cartel Vessel Means He’ll Use the Military to Interfere in Elections or Something

This week, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker said that the real reason Trump wants to bring National Guard troops into Chicago is so that he can ‘set the stage’ to use the U.S. Military to interfere in future elections like the 2026 midterms.

As insane as that sounds, it has apparently now become a talking point among Democrats.

While appearing on MSNBC, Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth added another crazy dimension to this, suggesting that when Trump took out that cartel vessel this week, that was proof that he is going to use the U.S. Military to interfere in future elections.

If any of this makes sense to you, you might be a Democrat.

Breitbart News has details:

While discussing speaking with federal officials about possible immigration crackdowns in Illinois, Duckworth said, “Overall, the city of North Chicago and the surrounding communities have made it clear to their law enforcement officers that they will not cooperate with DHS and ICE unless there is a federal warrant, not one of these fake ICE warrants, but a federal warrant.

And that they’re not going to participate [in] and support ICE actions in basically harassing and intimidating everyday people on the streets of our cities.”

She added that “this President is setting the conditions so that he can actually unilaterally occupy the streets of our cities and interfere in the next election, do what he wants.”

Keep reading

Trump Reportedly Considering Striking Cartels Inside Venezuela

President Donald Trump is reportedly considering unleashing military strikes directly against drug cartels operating deep inside Venezuela, as part of a no-holds-barred strategy to dismantle Nicolas Maduro’s regime.

The consideration comes amid Trump’s ongoing war on narco-trafficking, which he sees as a direct threat to American security, especially with the flood of drugs pouring across our southern border under failed Biden-Harris policies.

Citing multiple unnamed sources briefed on the plans, CNN reported on Friday evening that Trump has greenlit options for targeted strikes on Venezuelan soil, building on a recent lethal operation that sank an alleged drug-smuggling boat leaving the country.

CNN reports:

The US has moved substantial military firepower into the Caribbean in recent weeks, a move meant in part to be a signal to Maduro, according to multiple White House officials.

Ships armed with Tomahawk missiles, an attack submarine, a range of aircraft and more than 4,000 US sailors and Marines are now all positioned near Venezuela. Two White House officials told CNN 10 advanced F-35 fighter jets are also being sent to Puerto Rico, where a Marine unit is currently conducting amphibious landing training exercises.

The administration has taken steps to connect Maduro to its broader anti-drug mission – labeling him as a narco-terrorist with ties to some of those recently-designated cartels – and doubling the bounty for his arrest to $50 million.

This shift will treat cartel operatives as enemy combatants, not just criminals, allowing for decisive military action.

White House officials emphasized that no final decision has been made regarding strikes inside Venezuela, but the door remains open if it serves U.S. interests.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked on Tuesday if the White House was considering strikes on Venezuelan soil against the Maduro regime, and he did not rule out the possibility.

Keep reading